List live Yardbarker sections for sports, teams, schools, and topics. Use returned slugs in /yardbarker/headlines to fetch targeted headlines.
List Yardbarker sections. Returns the complete live-verified directory snapshot of Yardbarker sports, teams, schools, and topics. Use each returned slug in /yardbarker/headlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that the result is a complete, live-verified snapshot (freshness and completeness) and that it is a directory rather than paginated content. It still omits any note on result size, caching, or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read-only listing it covers the salient traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences with no filler: purpose first, then payload description, then the follow-up action. Front-loading the verb and resource makes the tool's role readable at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must stand alone, and it covers purpose, payload content, and downstream usage of the slugs. It stops short of describing the shape of each entry (fields beyond slug), which is the only remaining gap for a listing endpoint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. It does add useful semantics about the returned slugs, which is where parameter-like ambiguity would otherwise live.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource (list Yardbarker sections) and immediately characterizes the payload: a directory of sports, teams, schools, and topics. An agent can distinguish this discovery tool from the many sibling section-listers and from yardbarker_headlines without opening a schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to use each returned slug in /yardbarker/headlines, which establishes this as the discovery step before content retrieval. It does not name what this tool is *not* for (e.g. do not use for actual headlines), so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.